Scoring system

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 22:07

Petunia wrote:Natter away!


Natter =/= quitting imo

I think it's a legitimate argument.
Last edited by VegaMan on 19 Aug 2013, 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby PJL » 19 Aug 2013, 22:07

Actually, quitting is the unilateral withdrawal from the game by one person without any agreement from anyone else. Whereas a draw is considered to be a mutual acceptance by all players that no one has achieved the objective of winning the game, nor is likely to do so, either within a pre-determined fixed period, or by a certain time agreed by all the players involved.
User avatar
PJL
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 06 Jul 2010, 21:35
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1237)
All-game rating: (1240)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 22:18

PJL wrote:Actually, quitting is the unilateral withdrawal from the game by one person without any agreement from anyone else. Whereas a draw is considered to be a mutual acceptance by all players that no one has achieved the objective of winning the game, nor is likely to do so, either within a pre-determined fixed period, or by a certain time agreed by all the players involved.



Actually:
quit1 [kwit] Show IPA verb, quit or quit·ted, quit·ting, adjective
verb (used with object)
1.
to stop, cease, or discontinue: She quit what she was doing to help me paint the house.
2.
to depart from; leave (a place or person): They quit the city for the seashore every summer.
3.
to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job.
4.
to release one's hold of (something grasped).
5.
to acquit or conduct (oneself).

surrender  
Use Surrender in a sentence
sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.
2.
to give (oneself) up, as to the police.
3.
to give (oneself) up to some influence, course, emotion, etc.: He surrendered himself to a life of hardship.
4.
to give up, abandon, or relinquish (comfort, hope, etc.).
5.
to yield or resign (an office, privilege, etc.) in favor of another.
verb (used without object)
6.
to give oneself up, as into the power of another; submit or yield.

Regardless of whether or not this is mutual or individual, it's still the same thing. By drawing, you are choosing to stop playing. You are choosing to give up trying to win. Sugarcoat it all you like but it's still the same thing. Even if you don't agree with me that it's the same thing I can't see how it makes sense that drawing should be considered winning.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby super_dipsy » 19 Aug 2013, 22:57

I have not followed this debate in detail, but it seems to be getting a bit fractious :)

I think part of the problem is that some people are getting tangled up between the original title of the thread (the scoring system) and the words used in emails and on game result descriptions for finished games.

I think the latter is being covered in another thread. As far as the scoring system is concerned, some people seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what we have today and mischaracterize it to serve a different argument.

The scoring system:
- A person achieving 18 SCs get the biggest 'score' - and this is weighted more heavily than any draw result
- Two people either eliminating the other 5 players (ie no centres/units or surrendered) or at least getting them to agree they are defeated and then agreeing to stop get the next best score
- Three people either eliminating the other 4 players ....
- Four people either eliminating the other 3 players...
etc.
In all cases, a player either eliminated, surrendered or admitting defeat gets the lowest score.

This clearly shows that the debate about drawing being considered winning or losing is nothing to do with the scoring system. If you want to debate the words in the messages or in the result description, that is a different discussion and to be honest is really only cosmetic because I guarantee 99% of players will not read the result emails anyway, and would not understand the distinction between wording being changed from Winner to Drawer.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12104
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 23:35

super_dipsy wrote:I have not followed this debate in detail, but it seems to be getting a bit fractious :)

I think part of the problem is that some people are getting tangled up between the original title of the thread (the scoring system) and the words used in emails and on game result descriptions for finished games.

I think the latter is being covered in another thread. As far as the scoring system is concerned, some people seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what we have today and mischaracterize it to serve a different argument.

The scoring system:
- A person achieving 18 SCs get the biggest 'score' - and this is weighted more heavily than any draw result
- Two people either eliminating the other 5 players (ie no centres/units or surrendered) or at least getting them to agree they are defeated and then agreeing to stop get the next best score
- Three people either eliminating the other 4 players ....
- Four people either eliminating the other 3 players...
etc.
In all cases, a player either eliminated, surrendered or admitting defeat gets the lowest score.

This clearly shows that the debate about drawing being considered winning or losing is nothing to do with the scoring system. If you want to debate the words in the messages or in the result description, that is a different discussion and to be honest is really only cosmetic because I guarantee 99% of players will not read the result emails anyway, and would not understand the distinction between wording being changed from Winner to Drawer.


My argument is that at a minimum, nothing short of a solo win should ever gain points. Best case scenario is that draws, eliminations, surrenders, etc.... anything NOT a solo win should be counted as a 100% loss and lose points.

I would have made another thread in the suggestion forum, however I didn't think you guys would want 3 threads talking about almost the same thing simultaneously.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby Petunia » 19 Aug 2013, 23:48

VegaMan wrote:My argument is that at a minimum, nothing short of a solo win should ever gain points.

That's not an argument. That's a fantasy. Your 'argument' is that the rules of the game are less relevant than your personal preference, and that a fleet should be able to fly from the North Sea to Naples in one move a draw is the same as a loss or surrender. I find it hilarious that you're quoting a dictionary definition of 'quit' (uncited, btw) to support your argument that drawing is quitting despite the rules being quite clear on the matter.

Also, why don't you just go hang out here so you can have your cake and eat it too?
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 23:59

Petunia wrote:
VegaMan wrote:My argument is that at a minimum, nothing short of a solo win should ever gain points.

That's not an argument. That's a fantasy. Your 'argument' is that the rules of the game are less relevant than your personal preference, and that a fleet should be able to fly from the North Sea to Naples in one move a draw is the same as a loss or surrender. I find it hilarious that you're quoting a dictionary definition of 'quit' (uncited, btw) to support your argument that drawing is quitting despite the rules being quite clear on the matter.

Also, why don't you just go hang out here so you can have your cake and eat it too?

Since when are ranked points rules of the game? Why do you keep bringing that up? I find it hilarious I keep having to repeat myself over this argument.

My personal preference is that Draws and surrenders should be banned. I am not arguing that point here. I am arguing that the scoring system (which is not part of any official rules at all) should be modified to reflect this lack of winning (aka quitting/surrendering/losing/drawing whatever you want to call it) appropriately. People drawing get partial credit for trying. If partial credit is to be given, then partial credit should be given for length of time played as well as for number of SC's obtained at the time the game ends. This isn't what I am asking for. I am asking for the removal of a reward for not winning the game. If you have any other questions about what my argument is about let me know and I can further clarify.


As for the definition of quit and surrendered..... really? Cite it?
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby gsmx » 20 Aug 2013, 02:45

The point is getting lost here as we digress into debating irrelevant semantics, draws are simply needed to keep the game of Diplomacy interesting.

Will Russia stay true to his word or will he slit the throat at the last minute? Will the foursome that successfully overthrew the solo threat cherish their victory together or will two conspire to break away for greater glory? Will Italy shake off the betrayal and fight on or meltdown and kamikaze himself into his betrayer? Will Turkey stand by Russia to the end even though Russia is a solo risk and if so will Russia reward him for his friendship? Can England be coaxed away from his sure thing Western Triple victory for a great shot at a two-way with Russia? If you insist the game ends with one player at the end then suddenly stabs are no longer suspenseful they're mandatory. It becomes a very long drawn out back-and-forth "stop the leader" games that ultimately will end in some kind of 4-5 man stalemate that will get extremely boring very fast.

The middle ground of rewarding draws feeds into the diplomacy/bargaining aspect of the game and drives the social game forward. I fully agree that any player worth his salt should always aim as high as possible as long as theirs still fight left in the game, but it's by giving players the option as to how much they want to gamble that makes this game exciting.

It'd be like playing poker (i apparently use this analogy a lot) where you are told you have to bet exactly $20 every hand and you have to play until all your money is gone. I can't really out play you as well anymore, i just have to hope I get good cards or really dumb players.
The first quality that is needed is audacity.
User avatar
gsmx
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: 22 Aug 2011, 14:50
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2088
All-game rating: 2424
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 03:29

gsmx wrote:The point is getting lost here as we digress into debating irrelevant semantics, draws are simply needed to keep the game of Diplomacy interesting.

Will Russia stay true to his word or will he slit the throat at the last minute? Will the foursome that successfully overthrew the solo threat cherish their victory together or will two conspire to break away for greater glory? Will Italy shake off the betrayal and fight on or meltdown and kamikaze himself into his betrayer? Will Turkey stand by Russia to the end even though Russia is a solo risk and if so will Russia reward him for his friendship? Can England be coaxed away from his sure thing Western Triple victory for a great shot at a two-way with Russia? If you insist the game ends with one player at the end then suddenly stabs are no longer suspenseful they're mandatory. It becomes a very long drawn out back-and-forth "stop the leader" games that ultimately will end in some kind of 4-5 man stalemate that will get extremely boring very fast.

The middle ground of rewarding draws feeds into the diplomacy/bargaining aspect of the game and drives the social game forward. I fully agree that any player worth his salt should always aim as high as possible as long as theirs still fight left in the game, but it's by giving players the option as to how much they want to gamble that makes this game exciting.

It'd be like playing poker (i apparently use this analogy a lot) where you are told you have to bet exactly $20 every hand and you have to play until all your money is gone. I can't really out play you as well anymore, i just have to hope I get good cards or really dumb players.


The problem with rewarding draws is that instead of people rushing to ally with the weaker powers, you have (our current system) games where people seek to eliminate as many people as possible. There is very little incentive or reason to ally with a weaker opponent as both the weaker opponent and stronger opponent will expect the mandatory stab that inevitably happens anyway. The back and forth game is one of the aspects that makes this game exciting, not boring. You need even more social aspect in a game where draws are discouraged, because in order to solo a win you have absolutely no choice but to get help from other people. Weaker players become more valuable as time progresses instead of becoming more obsolete as they are now. Everyone fights against the top dog in order keep him from winning the game while at the same time having to watch your buddy for his aspirations instead.

Permanent alliances become almost worthless (instead of the current expected) and the game gets dictated by temporary alliances (those that usually fail in the current game). I think this would enrich both the quality of the games played and the players themselves since value for small countries is still preserved, even if with no armies and only 1 undefended SC. Where wins actually mean something, and the end result is "oh, I actually have to plan this win out" instead of "oh, well if this doesn't work I'll just propose a draw," and other players accepting it because it's better than a loss.

But that's my 2 cents.

Also, I think the analogy is slightly off since you're not dealt SC gains and losses out of sheer luck, and since in tournament poker.... you play until all your opponents are eliminated (no chips/money left)
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby super_dipsy » 20 Aug 2013, 06:29

Ah, sorry, I see I misunderstood the issue. I was reacting to your statement that a draw was the same as a solo win, which is clearly not the case (hence my previous post). I see you are now arguing that
VegaMan wrote:nothing short of a solo win should ever gain points. Best case scenario is that draws, eliminations, surrenders, etc.... anything NOT a solo win should be counted as a 100% loss and lose points.


I think the problem here is that looking from the same starting point, you are drawing different conclusions than the other posters. As gsmx has said twice now, it is the presence of a draw possibility that actually makes a lot of the play interesting and shifting. You argue that not having any form of draw recognition would make the game more interesting and put more focus on shifting alliances, whereas I suspect the opposite may be true and in fact it might rather ruin the site.

Imagine for a moment. We are playing with a 100% loss rating for anything other than a solo. This has a number of effects on a rating system. First off, by far the majority of people would have heavily negative (relative to a fixed starting point) ratings. By definition, 6 out of 7 players are going to take a 100% hit for losing in each game. At a purely social level, this will detract from player enjoyment and probably reduce the number of players - people like to 'succeed' in some form if they feel they have done well, and while I fully understand the logic that if you have not achieved 18 SCs you have not won, to not have any form of other recognition would damage the site in my opinion. Secondly, suppose you are in a game and are no way the strongest power. While again I understand that a skilled diplomat might every now and then be able to pull off a miraculous solo from a position of only 2 or 3 units left, it is pretty rare and in the perceptions of most players on the site it would seem so unlikely as to be impossible. If there is no carrot of the potential to participate in a draw and at least get something from the game in terms of points, I suspect we would see a much higher surrender rate. Thirdly, there is a very odd psychological switch that it seems to me this brings - you actually encourage people to play for the loss. If you have one leader, the incentive today to team up against the leader is to try to prevent him getting a solo but instead to set up a stalemate and thereby share in a draw, getting some sort of reward for your effort. In your proposed setting, you would actually be taking a mindset of 'if I can't win, then let's make sure everyone loses'. This is not the natural way people tend to motivate themselves - brains generally don;t respond well to negative instructions, they usually can only follow positive ones (eg the old psych chestnut that if you say I must not drop this cup of tea, you are more likely to drop it than if you say I must carry this tea safely to the table).

I guess for me the saddest point about the suggestion is losing those admittedly rare but extremely satisfying situations where as a one unit country you manage to end up as the point of contention between the two remaining powers, with neither being prepared to let the other destroy you. It seems a terrible shame that in your world that pretty amazing and immensely satisfying conclusion would just be a 100% loss for all - the 4 players who have been eliminated or surrendered and the remaining three all receiving the same penalty :(
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12104
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests